Initial clinical experience with the Coherex FlatStent™ and FlatStent™ EF PFO closure system for in-tunnel PFO closure: results of the Coherex-EU study.

The Coherex-EU Study evaluated the safety and efficacy of PFO closure utilizing novel in-tunnel PFO closure devices. Transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) followed the development of transcatheter closure devices designed to patch atrial septal defects (ASDs). The Coherex FlatStent™ and FlatStent™ EF devices were designed specifically to treat PFO anatomy. A total of 95 patients with a clinical indication for PFO closure were enrolled in a prospective, multicenter first in man study at six clinical sites. Thirty-six patients received the first-generation FlatStent study device, and 57 patients received the second-generation FlatStent EF study device, which was modified based on clinical experience during the first 38 cases. Two patients enrolled to receive the first generation did not receive a device. At 6 months post-procedure, 45% (17/38) of the intention-to-treat (ITT) cohort receiving the first-generation FlatStent device had complete closure, 26% (10/38) had a trivial residual shunt, and 29% (11/38) had a moderate to large residual shunt. In the ITT cohort receiving the second-generation FlatStent EF device, 76% (43/57) had complete closure, 12% (7/57) had a trivial shunt, and 12% had a moderate to large shunt. Five major adverse events occurred, all without sequelae. This initial study of the Coherex FlatStent/FlatStent EF PFO Closure System demonstrated the potential for in-tunnel PFO closure. The in-tunnel Coherex FlatStent EF may offer an alternative to septal repair devices for PFO closure in appropriately selected patients; however, further investigation will be necessary to establish the best use of this device.

Sievert H ，Wunderlich N ，Reiffenstein I ，Ruygrok P ，Grube E ，Buellesfeld L ，Meier B ，Schofer J ，Muller D ，Jones RK ，Gillam L ... -  《-》

The Flatstent versus the conventional umbrella devices in the percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale.

Patent foramen ovale (PFO) has been associated with paradoxical embolism leading to stroke/transient ischemic attack, migraine, and neurological decompression sickness. In search for the optimal device that would achieve effective clinical closure with minimal complications, a better device selection based on PFO anatomy and improvements in device design is needed. The Flatstent is a new device designed to treat the highly prevalent long-tunnel PFOs from within, minimizing the amount of material left behind in an attempt to reduce device-related complications. The objective is to compare the safety and efficacy of the novel Flatstent versus the conventional umbrella devices in the transcatheter closure of PFO in a nonrandomized, retrospective, single-center study. Between March 2010 and March 2013, 88 patients underwent PFO closure at The Heart Hospital, London with either the novel Flatstent or one of the four conventionally used umbrella devices (GORE Helex Septal Occluder, Occlutech Figulla Flex, Biostar Septal Occluder, and Amplatzer PFO Occluder) depending on their PFO anatomy. Patients were then evaluated with contrast transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and/or transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE) at 6 weeks and 1 year after the procedure. The residual shunt and complication rates between the Flatstent and umbrella devices were compared. The Flatstent was used in 27 patients (30.7%), whereas 61 patients (69.3%) received one of the four umbrella devices. Primary efficacy point of clinical closure defined as grade 0 or grade 1; residual shunt was achieved in 81.3% in the Flatstent cohort and 80.3% in the umbrella device group at 6 weeks follow-up. At 1 year, the clinical closure rates reached 92.6 and 91.8%. There were two device embolizations, one in each cohort during the immediate postoperative period (<24 hrs), with successful retrieval. One patient in the umbrella device group developed transient atrial fibrillation, which was controlled medically. Event recurrence rate was 0% at 1 year. No difference was found in closure or complication rates between the Flatstent and the umbrella devices. With appropriate preassessment of the PFO anatomy, the Flatstent works as a safe and effective method of treating the PFO from within the tunnel, especially in those with long-tunnel PFOs. Longer follow-up is needed to establish superiority.

Aral M ，Mullen M 《-》

In-tunnel closure of patent foramen ovale with a FlatStent EF™.

Noc M ，Cernic Suligoj N ，Zvan B ，Zorc M ，Kar S ... -  《-》

Closure of Long-Tunnel PFOs With the Coherex Flatstent EF - A Tailored Approach.

Reinthaler M ，Aggarwal SK ，Mert A ，Lim S ，Skurk C ，Landmesser U ，Mullen MJ ... -  《-》

Results of percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale with the GORE(®) septal occluder.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the GORE(®) Septal Occluder (GSO) at 1-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up in patients with a clinical indication for patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure. Limited data are available regarding the safety and efficacy of the GSO for PFO closure. Sixty consecutive patients with an embolic event, migraine, or risk of decompression sickness were enrolled. Transesophageal or transthoracic echocardiography and clinical follow-up were performed at 1, 6 and 12 months after implantation. All patients received 100 mg aspirin and 75 mg clopidogrel for 6 months. Procedures were technically successful in 98.3% (59/60). In one case, the anterior interatrial septal rim proved too short to allow safe GSO implantation and, instead, a different occluder was implanted. One patient developed transient neurological symptoms during the procedure without evidence for a stroke by magnetic resonance imaging. At 6-month follow-up, the closure rate was 86.6% (52/60). The complete closure rate after 1 year was 93.3% (56/60). Stroke, thrombus formation and atrial fibrillation (AF)/flutter occurred in 1 (1.7%), 1 (1.7%), and 5 (8.3%) patients, respectively. PFO closure with the GSO is accompanied by a high technical success rate and closure rates similar to other currently used devices. The incidence of AF was higher than reported with most other devices. This may be a chance finding but warrants further investigation in larger trials.

Knerr M ，Bertog S ，Vaskelyte L ，Hofmann I ，Sievert H ... -  《-》